- (1.) Case called out in the revised list. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The present bail application has been filed for enlarging the accused-applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 259 of 1995, under Sections 147, 148, 149, 353, 333, 307, 302 and 120-B I.P.C., P.S. Colonelganj/C.B.I., District Allahabad. A preliminary objection has been raised in connection with the hearing of this bail application that the High Court at Allahabad has no jurisdiction to hear this bail application. It is further contended that order under challenge has been passed by the CBI Court Lucknow which is subordinate Court to the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court and this Court at Allahabad has no jurisdiction to hear the bail application.
(2.) In this connection, it is contended by learned counsel for the accused applicant that Allahabab High Court being the main and permanent seat of the High Court and also the fact that initial cause of action have arisen at Allahabad, although, the matter has been investigated by CBI Court Lucknow and the order of rejection has been passed by CBI Court Lucknow, hence Allahabad High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the same.
(3.) In this connection, learned counsel for the applicant referred a ruling of the Hon'ble Apex Court which is reported in Nasiruddin v. State Transport, 1976 AIR(SC) 331 Appellate, in the aforesaid ruling the question of jurisdiction on the civil matter was under consideration before the Apex Court. The Apex Court while dealing with the aforesaid matter has summed the matter in paras-37, 38, 39, 40 and 41 of the aforesaid case which are as follows: Para 37- "First there is no permanent seat of the High Court at Allahabad. The seats at Allahabad and at Lucknow may be changed in accordance with the provisions of the order. Second, the Chief Justice of the High Court has no power to increase or decrease the areas in Oudh from time to time. The areas in Oudh have been determined once by the Chief Justice and, therefore, there is scope for changing the areas. Third, the Chief Justice has power under second proviso to paragraph 14 of the order to direct in his discretion that any case or class of cases arising in Oudh areas shall be heard at Allahabad. Any case or class of cases are those which are instituted at Lucknow. The interpretation given by the High Court that the word "heard" confers powers on the Chief Justice to order that any case or class of cases arising in Oudh areas shall be instituted or filed at Allahabad instead of Lucknow may in the discretion of the Chief Justice is wrong. The word "heard" means that cases which have already been instituted or filed at Lucknow may in the discretion of the Chief Justice under the second provision to paragraph 14 of the order be directed to be heard at Allahabad. Fourth, the expression "cause of action" with regard to a civil matter means that it should be left to the litigant to institute cases at Lucknow Bench or at Allahabad Bench according to the cause of action arising wholly or in part within either of the areas. If the cause of action arises wholly within Oudh areas then the Lucknow Bench will have jurisdiction. Similarly, if the cause of action arises wholly outside the specified areas in Oudh, then Allahabad will have jurisdiction. If the cause of action in part arises in the specified Oudh areas and part of the cause of action arises outside the specified areas, it will be open to the litigant to frame the case appropriately to attract the jurisdiction either at Lucknow or at Allahabad. Fifth, a criminal case arises where the offence has been committed or otherwise as provided in the Criminal Procedure Code. That will attract the jurisdiction of the Court at Allahabad or Lucknow. In some cases depending on the facts and the provision regarding jurisdiction, it may arise in either place. Para-38- Applications under Article 226 will similarly lie either at Lucknow or at Allahbad as the applicant will allege that the whole of cause of action or part of the cause of action arose at Lucknow within the specified areas of Oudh or part of the cause of action arose at a place outside the specified Oudh areas. Para-39- The answers given by the High Court to the first three questions are correct save as modified by our conclusions aforesaid. Para-40- The answer given by the High Court to the fourth question is set aside. The meaning of cases arising in Oudh areas will be found out by appropriate Courts in the light of this judgement. Para-41- The answer to the fifth question is discharged. The matters are sent back to the High Court for disposal in accordance with this judgement.;